If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Dusty Baker said what?

Here is the quote of the millenium (so far) from Dusty Baker:

“People were upset because we were playing Willy, but we were playing Willy because we were trying to trade Willy,” Baker said. “You can’t trade somebody if he isn’t playing. Not to go back in the past, but don’t that make sense?”

Let's recap. The Rockies couldn't trade him for a bag of baseballs so they just dump him. The Reds bid against themselves, I suppose, and sign Taveras to a ridiculous two-year contract. And now we are supposed to believe that the Reds were forced to play him because they were trying to trade him??!!? The Reds signed him in order to trade him when they had already seen that nobody wanted him? Think about that pretzel logic. We know nobody wants him so we will sign him to an inflated contract in order to trade him. What? Did they think they were going to maximize his value by overpaying him? And if the Reds were really trying to trade him they should have sat him because his value went down every time he stepped onto the field. I certainly can't figure that one out. So, no Dusty, it doesn't make any sense.

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Originally Posted by webbbj

when did this get said, last year? this is old news imo. dont know why this would even be discussed or even a question directed toward dusty this time of year.

It was reported in John Fay's blog on July 3rd of this year. That was all of yesterday; so I can see where you would think it is old news. Maybe that answers why it is just now being brought up. It was just now said.

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Originally Posted by texasdave

Here is the quote of the millenium (so far) from Dusty Baker:

Let's recap. The Rockies couldn't trade him for a bag of baseballs so they just dump him. The Reds bid against themselves, I suppose, and sign Taveras to a ridiculous two-year contract. And now we are supposed to believe that the Reds were forced to play him because they were trying to trade him??!!? The Reds signed him in order to trade him when they had already seen that nobody wanted him? Think about that pretzel logic. We know nobody wants him so we will sign him to an inflated contract in order to trade him. What? Did they think they were going to maximize his value by overpaying him? And if the Reds were really trying to trade him they should have sat him because his value went down every time he stepped onto the field. I certainly can't figure that one out. So, no Dusty, it doesn't make any sense.

BS. Dusty is trying to come up with a reason why he's a dumb manager so he can get a contract extension and get the public to be on his side. He finally admits that playing a sub-.300 OBP guy at the top of the order was a bad idea. But, how does that explain him doing it before Taveras got here and that he's been doing it all season this year with Cabrera?

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

After years of bad baseball it finally looks like we got a nice little team. We're in first place, everyone is playing hard, everyone seeems to know their role, and the team chemestry seems to be great. We just hit seven home runs and took 3 out of 4 from the Cubs in their own ball park.

And despite all that, there are folks here still *****ing about the manager. Go figure.

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Originally Posted by texasdave

It was reported in John Fay's blog on July 3rd of this year. That was all of yesterday; so I can see where you would think it is old news. Maybe that answers why it is just now being brought up. It was just now said.

I think they mentioned it in the game today. They were comparing Stubbs' playing time to Tavares. Dusty said the reason Tavares got playing time was they wanted to trade him, but Stubbs is getting playing time because he has a ton of upside.

I could be wrong, but that is what Thom said during the broadcast today.

It doesn't matter, we are talking about a guy who sends his pitcher to hit in a 3 run game, 2 outs, a man in scoring position, and planned on replacing him the next inning (with an All Star on your bench able to pinch hit). A guy that sends a mediocre runner on a hit and run with one of the worst contact hitters in the league at the plate. A man who actually stated on more than one occasion a slow player taking a walk is clogging up the bases. I am telling you, the man has had a series of strokes, or a lobotomy, or something. That is why he is a great players manager, but he cannot figure out logical situations on the field of play better than a 3 year old. Hey, so far that works, but he is no genius.

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Originally Posted by scott91575

I think they mentioned it in the game today. They were comparing Stubbs' playing time to Tavares. Dusty said the reason Tavares got playing time was they wanted to trade him, but Stubbs is getting playing time because he has a ton of upside.

I could be wrong, but that is what Thom said during the broadcast today.

It doesn't matter, we are talking about a guy who sends his pitcher to hit in a 3 run game, 2 outs, a man in scoring position, and planned on replacing him the next inning (with an All Star on your bench able to pinch hit). A guy that sends a mediocre runner on a hit and run with one of the worst contact hitters in the league at the plate. A man who actually stated on more than one occasion a slow player taking a walk is clogging up the bases. I am telling you, the man has had a series of strokes, or a lobotomy, or something. That is why he is a great players manager, but he cannot figure out logical situations on the field of play better than a 3 year old. Hey, so far that works, but he is no genius.

To be fair that pitcher is hitting close to .400 and the reasoning he gave for not hitting Rolin made sense to me. First base was open and they would have just walked him and you would have wasted your best bat off the bench.

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Originally Posted by Lockdwn11

To be fair that pitcher is hitting close to .400 and the reasoning he gave for not hitting Rolin made sense to me. First base was open and they would have just walked him and you would have wasted your best bat off the bench.

That makes sense?

So you believe....

#1 Leake is actually going to be close to a .400 hitter for his career or anywhere near the hitter of Rolen or Phillips (see the next points)
#2 The Phils would actually walk Rolen to get to Phillips and put the tying run at the plate.
#3 and therefore you still would take Leake hitting with 1 on vs. Phillips hitting with 2 on with the possibility of tying up the game. You know, a guy who had already tripled off of Blanton in that very game vs. a pitcher who has 1 extra base hit in his entire career.

Heck, if Leake is so good vs. a guy like Rolen or anyone else on the bench, his ass should be pinch hitting more.

I actually think less of Dusty now after that explanation. It actually combines the base clogging belief with the stupidity of having the pitcher hit.

Seriously, that actually makes sense to you? Really?

Although I guess it was a good thing he saved Rolen for later in the game to pinch hit. Oh wait, he never did use him. Another Dusty peeve. He saves guys who would be very useful at the time for just in case scenarios that never occur.

Don't get me wrong, I think Dusty is actually good for the clubhouse atmosphere, but he is one of the worst in game managers in baseball.

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Originally Posted by scott91575

That makes sense?

So you believe....

#1 Leake is actually going to be close to a .400 hitter for his career or anywhere near the hitter of Rolen or Phillips (see the next points)
#2 The Phils would actually walk Rolen to get to Phillips and put the tying run at the plate.
#3 and therefore you still would take Leake hitting with 1 on vs. Phillips hitting with 2 on with the possibility of tying up the game. You know, a guy who had already tripled off of Blanton in that very game vs. a pitcher who has 1 extra base hit in his entire career.

Heck, if Leake is so good vs. a guy like Rolen or anyone else on the bench, his ass should be pinch hitting more.

I actually think less of Dusty now after that explanation. It actually combines the base clogging belief with the stupidity of having the pitcher hit.

Seriously, that actually makes sense to you? Really?

Sure does. I wouldn't have done it that way but I can see why he did it. Either way I wouldn't have used up Rolin there like you said he should have, would I have pinch hit there yep but not with the guy you wanted.You would have waisted your best bat off the bench and that makes sense to you?

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

Originally Posted by Lockdwn11

Sure does. I wouldn't have done it that way but I can see why he did it. Either way I wouldn't have used up Rolin there like you said he should have, would I have pinch hit there yep but not with the guy you wanted.You would have waisted your best bat off the bench and that makes sense to you?

Umm, yeah (see my edit). First off, you are assuming he gets walked (that is in no way a sure thing, and most managers would not do that with Phillips up next). A walk would be great, especially if you think he is the only guy that is going to get walked. Get Phillips up with 2 on. Why save someone for a just in case that never happens.

I could even see using a different pinch hitter, but neither Rolen nor another pinch hitter is going to get walked with an everyday hitter behind him that is hitting almost .400 and an OPS over .900 during that month. Therefore Rolen is the best choice.

Re: Dusty Baker said what?

The whole Willy Taveras debacle gives me headaches that I don't care to have. Please lets not get stuck on the past...we all know that the Reds (not just baker,,,everyone on the staff and in the offices) really messed up there.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball